DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the RCE filed on June 8th 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/8/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-8, filed 6/8/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 and 9-12 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, applicant’s explicit and direct reliance on limitations in the preamble to overcome the prior art of record has the functional effect of incorporating those features into the body of the claim. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wu et al. US 2025/0219447 A1.
Applicant’s remaining arguments, pg. 9-14, regarding the BRI of the claims are not persuasive for the same reasons given in the previous office action (see pg. 2-3). The claims have been interpreted in accordance with the MPEP section 2111.04. Applicant’s assertion that the limitation in question is not contingent is incorrect. Attempting to phrase the limitation as “a definite limitation that may occur only sometimes” is purely attorney conjecture. Instead, as mandated by the MPEP, the BRI of the claim does not require the claim elements in question because it is possible the criteria (i.e. when the state is …) never occurs.
Applicant's arguments, pg. 14-18, regarding the 103 rejection, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (pg. 15) that Zimny does not teach sending a completion message in response to the bridge successfully completing the updating of the bridge configuration. This is not persuasive. Zimny discloses a reporting channel that is used to publish messages, in particular this includes “status updates and/or changes about the bridge” (paragraph 141). This teaching alone clearly contemplates sending a competition message regarding the bridge successfully completing the updating of the bridge configuration. Applicant suggests there is no teaching regarding when the message is sent, in other words, Zimny does not teach sending the message “in response to” as required by the claim. However, that same sentence explicitly teaches publishing an error “when an error occurs”. Thus, Zimny does teach “when” to send the message contrary to applicant’s assertion otherwise. In light of the explicit teaching of sending a message when a condition occurs, Zimny clearly teaches or suggests sending the status update message “in response to” the completion of the updating.
Applicant states (pg. 16-17) that while Cholas discloses UDP, there is no suggestion to use UDP, and hence there is no motivation to combine. This is not persuasive. Motivation to combine was clearly given in the office action. Applicant also states that Cholas is not related to the subject matter of the instant claims even though some of the same words are used. This is also not persuasive. The test is whether the reference is analogous prior art. A baseless assertion that a reference “is not related” is insufficient. A reference may be analogous if it is from the same field of endeavor. In this case, the field of endeavor includes a network with bridge and server and wireless communication. Cholas also discloses a network, with bridge, servers and using wireless communication (abstract, Figs. 1-2, paragraph 5). Thus, it is from the same field of endeavor and therefore analogous prior art.
Applicant’s remarks (pg. 18) regarding the new claim are noted. New claim 21 is rejected and objected to as explained in the detailed rejection below.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimny et al. US 2019/0205541 A1 in view of Wu et al. US 2025/0219447 A1.
Regarding claim 1, nearly all the limitations recited by claim 1 are behind a contingent limitation (i.e. “when the current state of the bridge is not a desired state … ”). Thus, the BRI of claim 1, since it is a method claim, requires only those steps that must be performed (see mpep 2111.04). In this case, the only required step is “receiving by the server an indication of a current state of the bridge”. This results in the scope of the claim being so broad, that nearly any prior art that teaches remote network device configuration and receiving network device state or status information, could read on the claim. Examiner has attempted to provide pertinent prior art for applicant’s use during prosecution.
Regarding claim 1, Zimny discloses a method for updating a configuration of a bridge in a network comprising at least the bridge, a gateway, and a server, the server being communicatively coupled to the gateway which is in turn wirelessly communicatively coupled to the bridge (abstract, paragraph 5, Figs. 1-2; wireless communication – see paragraphs 54, 64) comprising:
receiving by the server an indication of a current state of the bridge (bridge publishes status update about the bridge device to server – see paragraph 141, 144, 148, Fig. 8).
The remaining limitations are not required because “when the current state of the bridge is not a desired state” is a condition precedent that may never occur. However, applicant is advised that Zimny teaches sending and receiving updates/configuration between a bridge and server and thus appears to disclose the features (paragraphs 141-148, Figs. 7-8)
when the current state of the bridge is not a desired state: setting, in the server, the current state of the bridge to pending for the desired state;
transmitting, by the server toward the bridge, a configure request to update the bridge to the desired state; and
when, within a predetermined period of time of transmitting the configure request, a completion message is received by the server from the bridge in response to updating the bridge configuration in response to the configure request, such updating having been performed using at least a portion of a protocol for wireless communication between the gateway and the bridge that does not support acknowledgement (ACK) messages or no acknowledgement (NACK) message (note: Zimny does not appear to explicitly disclose a protocol that does not support ACK messages however there are many well-known protocols in the art such as UDP – see the rejection of claim 13)., setting the current state of the bridge to the desired state in the server.
Zimny does not explicitly disclose communicating with and supplying energy for operation to IoT wireless tags. However, this is taught by Wu (IoT tag receives energy via radio transmission from network device and performs energy harvesting – see paragraph 59, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimny to include IoT devices that performed energy harvesting from radio transmissions as taught by Wu. Wu teaches this allows passive IoT tags to gain enough energy to perform communication over a network (paragraphs 4, 59). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of being able to supply power wirelessly.
Regarding claim 2, Zimny discloses the protocol for wireless communication comprises only BLE advertising packets (use BLE standard – paragraphs 82, Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 3, Zimny discloses waiting … for the predetermined period of time after transmitting the configure request to receive a … message; and when the predetermined period expires without receipt of the … message, transmitting again (transmit and wait a predetermined period of time – see paragraph 108). Zimny does not explicitly disclose the server waiting for a period of time and then retransmitting when the period expires without receiving a completion/confirmation but this is very well-known in the art. Servers running TCP implement retransmission timeout where they retransmit after a time period expires when no ACK (completion message) is received. This is merely the combination of a well-known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 4, Zimny discloses querying the network for an existing reliable path to the bridge wherein, transmitting the configure request is performed only when there is a reliable existing path to the bridge (the server transmits the request in response to receiving a communication from the bridge, thus it transmits when there is an existing path to the bridge, not before – paragraph 131, Fig. 7; Zimny also teaches device-specific paths which are channels known only to the bridge/server pair in order to communicate – paragraph 136).
Regarding claim 5, it depends from claim 4 and is based on the condition of waiting when a path does not exist. Similar to claim 1, this condition may never occur and therefore the features are not required under the BRI of the claim. Applicant is advised that Zimny teaches periodic communication and waiting for predetermined time periods between transmissions (paragraph 108).
Regarding claim 6, Zimny discloses the indication of the current state of the bridge includes at least one of a firmware version, an API version and a list of at least one capability of the bridge (firmware – see paragraphs 140-141 and 148-151).
Regarding claim 9, Zimny discloses the configure request is transmitted from the server to the gateway and thereafter is relayed by the gateway to the bridge (intermediate device such as message broker relays communication between server and bridge – see Figs. 7-8; Zimny also teaches using a gateway – paragraphs 54-55).
Regarding claim 10, Zimny discloses the current state of the bridge is received at the server by being relayed thereto from the gateway (intermediate device such as message broker relays communication between server and bridge – see Figs. 7-8; Zimny also teaches using a gateway – paragraphs 54-55).
Regarding claim 11, Zimny discloses the current state of the bridge, the configure request, and the completion message are each in a BLE advertising packet (use BLE for wireless communication – paragraphs 57, 59, 102-103, 116 and Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 12, Zimny discloses the current state of the bridge, the configure request, and the completion message are each a state-type BLE advertising packet (use BLE for wireless communication – paragraphs 57, 59, 102-103, 116 and Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 21, it is a method claim that directly corresponds to claim 1 but replaces “when” with “in response to”. This is merely an editorial change. There is no functional change in the scope of the claim. According to the MPEP, the BRI of the claim includes only those steps that must be performed. The phrase “in response to…” is still a condition precedent that means the limitations following may not occur. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimny and Wu in view of Devine et al. US 10,970,136 B1.
Regarding claim 7, Zimny discloses the configure request is structured based on a … API version that describes the configuration and [an] advertisement packets’ structure (request is based on API version and includes packets elements such as headers for example according to API Version – see paragraphs 153-154 and 157, Table 1). Zimny does not explicitly disclose a “new” API version but this is taught by Devine as API versions and a “new” API version (col. 4 ln. 42-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zimny and Wu with the API translation taught by Devine for the purpose of communicating between devices. Devine teaches this allows for APIs to be update (e.g. new API version) without breaking code dependencies and allows customers to continue using software/systems (col. 1 ln. 60 – col. 2 ln. 53).
Regarding claim 8, Zimny does not explicitly disclose the new API version was requested by the user, but this is taught by Devine (user requests API version – col. 8 ln. 48-53). The motivation to combine is the same as that given above.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimny and Wu in view of Cholas et al. US 2010/0313226 A1.
Regarding claim 13, it is a method claim that corresponds to the method of claim 1 but is directed to the actions of the bridge, any corresponding limitations are rejected for the same reasons given above.
Zimny discloses:
transmitting by the bridge an indication of a current state of the bridge toward the server (paragraph 141, 148, Fig. 7-8);
receiving, by the bridge, a configure request to update the bridge to a desired state (paragraph 142, 148-149); and
transmitting, by the bridge, a completion message toward the server in response to the bridge successfully completing the updating of the bridge’s configuration per the configure request (reporting channel publishes status updates or changes about the bridge to the server – paragraph 141; also see paragraph 141 which teaches the bridge sends an update firmware information message to the server – this is equivalent to a confirmation that the bridge has completed the update of the configuration).
Zimny also discloses such updating having been performed using at least a portion of a protocol for wireless communication between the gateway and the bridge (wireless – paragraphs 54, 64).
Zimny does not explicitly disclose the protocol does not support ACK messages or NACK messages. Cholas discloses a network bridge and server communicating for remote configuration and provisioning, including obtaining and transmitting status information, as well as updating (paragraph 143). Cholas explicitly discloses using UDP which does not support ACK messages (paragraph 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zimny and Wu to use UDP to communicate as taught by Cholas. UDP is extremely well-known in the art and yields predictable results. Thus, this is merely the combination of a known technique according to its established function in order to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 14, Zimny discloses the protocol for wireless communication comprises only BLE advertising packets (use BLE standard – paragraphs 82, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Zimny discloses the indication of the current state of the bridge includes at least one of a firmware version, an API version and a list of at least one capability of the bridge (firmware – see paragraphs 140-141 and 148-151).
Regarding claim 18, Zimny discloses the configure request is relayed by the gateway to the bridge (intermediate device such as message broker relays communication between server and bridge – see Figs. 7-8; Zimny also teaches using a gateway – paragraphs 54-55).
Regarding claim 19, Zimny discloses the current state of the bridge is transmitted toward the gateway to be relayed thereby to the server (intermediate device such as message broker relays communication between server and bridge – see Figs. 7-8; Zimny also teaches using a gateway – paragraphs 54-55).
Regarding claim 20, Zimny discloses the current state of the bridge, the configure request, and the completion message are each in a BLE advertising packet (use BLE for wireless communication – paragraphs 57, 59, 102-103, 116 and Figs. 3-5).
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimny, Wu and Cholas in further view of Devine et al. US 10,970,136 B1.
Regarding claims 16-17, they correspond to claims 7-8 respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elshafie et al. US 2024/0163659 A1 discloses “zero power” IoT devices are “tags” that harvest energy from radio transmissions from network nodes (abstract, paragraph 80, Fig. 1).
Herbert et al. US 2017/0142659 A1 discloses wireless bridges communicating with wireless tags (abstract, Fig. 1).
Swart US 10,028,105 B1 discloses a system comprising a server, a bridge and IoT tags that communicate using BLE (abstract, Fig. 1), and exchanging status information and configuration changes between the bridge and server (Fig. 11).
Wang et al. US 2023/0378807 A1 discloses IoT tags that can harvest energy from radio signals (paragraphs 49, 103, Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON D RECEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights